Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralPortable MacsHardwareNetworking
Applications
Mac ApplicationsEudoraFirefox / MozillaInternet ExplorerOutlook ExpressMS OfficeEntourageExcelPowerPointWordVirtual PCMedia PlayerOther MS Products
Programming
Mac ProgrammingCodeWarriorPerl
Country Specific
Australian Mac GroupUK Mac Group

Mac Forum / General / Networking / April 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Solved -- can't ping

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
gandalf@doctorTimothyMiller.com - 26 Apr 2005 19:08 GMT
Thanks to all those who tried to assist me with this issue in a
previous thread.

On two different occasions, two different people at my dialup ISP's
tech support department insisted that the ISP's server does not block
pings or traceroutes.

I made a third inquiry at the ISP, after running out of other ideas.
This time I was informed that the server blocks all ICMP traffic.

Is this really necessary? I wonder how many times my little mom and pop
ISP was the target of a ping attack, or the source of one. Probably
never!

Would blocking ICMP traffic likely interfere with proper TCP/IP
Timbuktu connections from dialup to DSL? This worked perfectly for
years. Then it stopped working about the same time that pings from my
dialup stopped working.

Thanks in advance for any replies to my new questioins.

Cheers,

Tim Miller
Heath Raftery - 29 Apr 2005 05:54 GMT
gandalf@doctortimothymiller.com wrote:
> On two different occasions, two different people at my dialup ISP's
> tech support department insisted that the ISP's server does not block
> pings or traceroutes.

> I made a third inquiry at the ISP, after running out of other ideas.
> This time I was informed that the server blocks all ICMP traffic.

Ha! Annoying isn't it? A scary trend I've seen before.

> Is this really necessary? I wonder how many times my little mom and pop
> ISP was the target of a ping attack, or the source of one. Probably
> never!

No, it's not necessary. It's stupid. Same thing happened around here -
there was that ping flood worm a while back and so the network ppl
killed pings forever. Great solution. Better solution would be to fix
the problem, but no, we'll cripple the network, and inconvenience all
the ppl doing the right things.

> Would blocking ICMP traffic likely interfere with proper TCP/IP
> Timbuktu connections from dialup to DSL? This worked perfectly for
> years. Then it stopped working about the same time that pings from my
> dialup stopped working.

Um, not sure. ICMP is typically used for diagnosis (ping and
traceroute, as you know) and that's why it gets on my nerves - blocking
all ICMP essentially leaves you in the dark without the basic,
essentially diagnostic tools.  Incidentally, traceroute in Windows uses
ICMP, but traceroute in Unix (and therefore Mac OS X) uses UDP
packets.

Anyhow, ICMP is for reporting errors and status on the IP network, and
it is quite possible that Timbuktu relies on this in some way. The only
way to know for sure is to talk to the engineers behind Timbuktu, or
get your hands dirty with a network packet sniffer.

Heath
Signature

*--------------------------------------------------------*

| ^Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool^ |
|    Heath Raftery, HRSoftWorks          _\|/_           |
*______________________________________m_('.')_m_________*
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.